then this movie can not be about a porn star who was very famous...
Amanda said she wants to keep this part of her body to her husband in the future and i respect that and ok with it, but then the directors should cast another actress who will bare all.
or am i wrong ???
This is one of the few movies with gratuities clothing instead of nudity.
shareThe movie wasn't really about a lot of nudity. There is also the problem of Amanda Seyfried having a *very* different body type from Linda Lovelace. Appearance wise she was really miscast. She played the role well, but she doesn't look a bit like Lovelace. Same goes for James Franco as Hefner. The part was small enough that they should have gone with an unknown who looked more like him as the did with the guy who played Sammy Davis jr.
Showing her fully nude, particularly her bottom, would destroy the illusion and it wasn't required to tell the story. They didn't even need to do the topless shot they did. I'm not saying they should have cast someone else, but I think they made the right choices for working with Amanda Seyfried.
You're wrong. The movie is about abuse, not getting the audience off.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"